Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
21/01182/HOU.
82 Ladywood Road Tolworth Surbiton KT6 7PD
Householder at 82 Ladywood Road Tolworth Surbiton KT6 7PD, received 16 Apr 2021 — refused on 16 Nov 2021 (delegated, Jake Powell).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
16 Nov 2021
31 wks
Decision time
23 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
5
Documents
5 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Kingston Upon Thames planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Erection of mansard roof, first floor side extension and installation of rooflights to side and rear to facilitate loft conversion.
Reference
21/01182/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 7PD
Council
Received
16 Apr 2021
Validated
23 Apr 2021
Target date
18 Jun 2021
Decision date
16 Nov 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
21/01182/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 7PD
Council
Received
16 Apr 2021
Validated
23 Apr 2021
Target date
18 Jun 2021
Decision date
16 Nov 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Kingston Upon Thames portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 16 Nov 2021, delegated decision by Jake Powell — 31 weeks from submission (23 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Apr 2021
Application received
23 Apr 2021
Application validated
18 Jun 2021
Statutory target date
16 Nov 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Jake Powell
16 Apr 2021
Application received
23 Apr 2021
Application validated
18 Jun 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
16 Nov 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Jake Powell
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, size, design and massing would sit uncomfortably
with the host and surrounding properties and within the street scene and would represent a cramped form
of development which would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the original property
and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. The proposed development would therefore
be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CS8 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy
2012.
2
The proposed development, by reason of its siting, design and massing would sit uncomfortably along
the junction of Ladywood Road and Hamilton Avenue and would detract from the open setting of the corner
plot and would represent an incongruous form of development within the street scene of Ladywood Road,
which includes a strong building line and pattern of development. In addition, the proposed development
would set a precedent for similar development within the area. The proposed development would therefore
be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CS8 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy
2012.
1
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, size, design and massing would sit uncomfortably
with the host and surrounding properties and within the street scene and would represent a cramped form
of development which would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the original property
and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. The proposed development would therefore
be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CS8 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy
2012.
2
The proposed development, by reason of its siting, design and massing would sit uncomfortably along
the junction of Ladywood Road and Hamilton Avenue and would detract from the open setting of the corner
plot and would represent an incongruous form of development within the street scene of Ladywood Road,
which includes a strong building line and pattern of development. In addition, the proposed development
would set a precedent for similar development within the area. The proposed development would therefore
be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CS8 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy
2012.
Policies cited
D3CS8DM10
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.